Eisspeedway

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force

Substitution templates

As I'm rapidly wearing out my keyboard, I've created three templates to help when writing articles. Two are for linking to lifeboat class articles and one for linking to lifeboat station articles. You just need to add a short parameter to avoid three-quarters of your typing.

  • {{Lbb}} – Lifeboat, for example {{Lbb|Severn}} will be read as [[Severn class lifeboat|Severn]] and so display as Severn.
  • {{Lbc}} – Lifeboat Class, for example {{Lbb|E}} will be read as [[E class lifeboat|E Class]] and so display as E-class.
  • {{Lbs}} – Lifeboat Station, for example {{Lbs|Fowey}} will be read as [[Fowey Lifeboat Station|Fowey]] and so display as Fowey.

Enjoy! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Why is this part of WPWATERSPORTS? Lifeboat service is not a watersport, and rescuing fishermen is not concerned with watersports. Wouldn't it be better to be part of WP:TRANSPORT or a new WPEMERGENCY project; or WP:UK? (or WP:MED/EMS) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former RNLI stations

There are quite a few former RNLI lifeboat stations that were closed. Some reopened as independents but some did not and may not be mentioned at all on WP. If interested editors think there many be a significant number of these, is it worth starting an article on this topic, do you think? If so, I would be happy to take it on if I was notified of any applicable stations. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with RNLI information

Hi, I'm Luke from the social media team at the RNLI - if there is any information you'd like from our archives, please do get in touch and I'll do my best to source it from our heritage team - social@rnli.org.uk, here or on my talk page.

Where I've spotted amends to our pages (ie incorrect boat names) I've worked with HappySailor to get these updated, inline with wikipedia principles - I'm also working to get a webpage added to our site to act as a verifiable source for such information.

Alukeonlife (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Alukeonlife: Hi Luke, good to know you're keen on RNLI input, as am I. There's still a lot to be done, and some lifeboat stations, each with their own fascinating history, still don't have pages on their own. I've been working on some Welsh ones, as well as the main RNLI article. There's a rich vein of information about former RNLI stations (see above), too, which should be tapped sometime. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should WikiProject Water Sports/RNLI Task Force become it's own WikiProject?

I was reading some articles under the scope of the RNLI Task Force, and noticed that they are not really related to WikiProject Water Sports. As there is a growing community of people who are supporting RNLI and creating and maintaining RNLI pages, we should create our own WikiProject.

Please comment with suggestions to make this possible.

Member of the RNLI task force

Porthysek (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Linking it with watersports isn't intuitive. The RNLI was set up to help commercial shipping, it is only in recent years that leisure users have come to the fore. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. Agreeing is easy, though; someone would have to establish and run it - no mean task. This is not something I would currently be able to commit to, though I would be happy to help as much as I can when I get back to editing more. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to move to it's own WP as not specifically linked to Water Sports. Franko2nd (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone tagged the task force as inactive recently but I have changed that back to semi-active as there's still activity and a need for coordination and consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boats with no name

@Geof Sheppard, Ojsyork, and Tony Holkham: Martin (Ojsyork) has been doing some good work recently, creating more articles, but is making heavy weather of their reception by other editors. I'm pinging other veterans of this task force to see if some discussion might help clear the air and help get us all pulling together.

One specific issue seems to be the treatment of boats with no name. This task force already has some guidance about article titles for these and there's a huge page, WP:SHIPNAME, which has a similar section.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not editing very much at the moment, and not willing to partake in these discussions, having read Martin's user page. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ships project seems to be concerned with article titles. I think what we need to consider for RNLI lifeboats is how they appear in all the tables that we use on lifeboat and station articles.
I'm leaning towards (no name) as when it is read in conjunction with the column header it can be taken as 'Name - (no name)'. This feels slightly less clunky than 'Name - unnamed'.
Leaving a blank cell could be ambiguous (did we miss the name?)
What is definitely incorrect is unnamed or no name as the italics would suggest it is a name.
Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I started out updating Lifeboat pages, I did so very carefully, trying to match what had gone before. In some cases, things I'd changed were jumped on, that lifeboat pages were very precise, and I immediately reverted what I had done. For example, I didn't understand the need to leave Silloth for example, which would appear in Red as the link didn't go anywhere.
I'm now doing my best to create these station pages, have done 12 so far.
There are hundreds of pages where the boat is referred to as Unnamed, capitalized, or italicised, and sometimes Unnamed, but all with this exact text, as it is what has gone before.
I'm sure I may be guilty of some of the variations, but if it is agreed that some form of Unnamed, or Unnamed (or without capitals) be the convention, I'm happy to make the amendments.
I see no value at this time changing EVERY entry to (No Name). Ojsyork (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear All
I have tried a few different styles for the Unnamed entries, and started by revising all the D-class tables.
IMHO, I think that Unnamed (Small, & Unnamed with a capital U) presents well.
Its not italicised, and being smaller sets it apart from normal names.
I don't suppose Geof will alter his view, but maybe some of the rest of you will agree.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular preference as all of the options work well enough for me. What does the Lifeboat Enthusiasts Handbook do? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnamed Ojsyork (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table format in station articles

Dates in service Class ON Op. No. Name Comments
2007−present Watson-class ON 1286 16-06 Frank and Anne Wilkinson

I see absolutely no reason for this format of table. Surely the Name of the boat should come first, but in the RNLI world, this is prefixed by an Official Number, and/or an Operational number. MartinOjsyork (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A well-designed table uses the first column to show the way that the rows are ordered. Every station article that I have looked at has the table ordered by date. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geof
"Every station article that I have looked at has the table ordered by date."
You are fully aware that is Not Correct.
All Station fleet tables were amended earlier this year to be of the same format as Lifeboat Fleet, with the ON and Op numbers first, followed by the name, service dates and class, in order to make some order of the mish-mash that existed previously.
The only tables that are different are the ones you have amended since my updates. Exmouth, Looe, Fowey, Teignmouth, Dart, Torbay, Plymouth, Salcombe.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Martin, I think you misunderstood what I meant by the way the rows are ordered. The tables have each row in successive date order. For example:
At Exmouth ON Op. No. Name Class
1933–1953 767 Catherine Harriet Eaton Self-righting
1953–1960 916 Maria Noble Liverpool
1960–1963 749 George and Sarah Strachan Watson
1963–1968 838 Michael Stephens Watson
1968–1970 847 Gertrude Watson
1970–1983 1012 48-009 City of Birmingham Solent
1983–1994 1088 33-06 Caroline Finch Brede
1994–1996 1045 44-019 Louis Marchesi of the Round Table Waveney
1996–2008 1210 14-12 Forward Birmingham Trent
2008–2014 1178 12-21 Margaret Jean Mersey
2014– 1310 13-03 R. and J. Welburn Shannon
Putting the rows into order for ON, Op No, name or class would put the rows in a different order. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, yes, you are correct, all the station fleet tables are ordered in Service Date order, and have always been arranged in Service date order, even those showing ON and OP numbers first. Ojsyork (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I started updates, I primarily worked on Fleet tables, which have ON numbers first.
Moving onto Station pages, I found a complete mish-mash of styles, and unaware of any directive on WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force, if they needed work, they were all made the same.
I do not really have a problem with the style of table you have produced above, and if that is what the majority prefer, then we make them all the same.
In Service, ON, Op, Name, Class, Comments
(I still think In Service, as it is consistent, and works better than At XXXX. At XXXX works fine for Bude, but not for Porthdinllaen, which creates a very wide column with no data. However, We discussed On Station as an alternative?)
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former RNLI stations

In a moment of madness, I decided I would create a List of former RNLI stations. Primarily because I know some pages already exist, Teesmouth, Robin Hood's Bay etc, which maybe aren't being seen enough. And I have some information to create more pages.

However, it needs more work, the list is incomplete, all collaboration welcomed.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of RNLB lifeboats

I have come across a rather curious List of RNLB lifeboats. Its introduction states that 'this is a list of notable RNLB coastal rescue lifeboats'. It has a list of about 40 links to Wikipedia articles about individual RNLI lifeboats. There is no context to why they have been deemed 'notable', nor are they in any order that I can see.

My instinct is that the page isn't needed. There have been no substantial edits since it was created in 2017 (although it is getting half a dozen readers every day). All the pages are included in Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by number and Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by name which have the benefit of being in a logical order. My instinct is to nominate the page for deletion, but I'm open to other editor's thoughts before I do that. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
Someone's hard work, maybe needs improving, but useful.
Seems a little contrived to say that all the info is included in Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by number and Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by name, when you have only just created those in the last week?
MartinOjsyork (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments

I recently enabled article assessments for all of the RNLI related articles (query, change) — thanks to Geof and others for the help in filling these out — this led me to finding a couple independent lifeboat stations that had been labelled as part of this task force; I've since removed them but let me know if you think this wasn't the right call / feel free to revert (same goes for any of my assessments):

Cheers, Aluxosm (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling either way. There are a lot of connections between independent services and the RNLI. Independents often use old RNLI lifeboats and stations, and exercise together. Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

  • The Edit warring on Rnli pages has got to stop. For the last year, I have had my updates systematically amended on many pages. Fleet pages amended, sometimes within minutes of my updates, ALL the South West stations, and recently Clacton-on-Sea, and Cromer, with their own descriptions for lifeboats, and deleting standard formatting. There is no valid reason for updates, other than they doesn't approve of pretty much anything I've added, and they are imposing their own view of how things should be. Not collaborative whatsoever. Previous discussions have fallen on deaf ears. It's time this stopped.

Ojsyork (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add... There is so much work needs doing to create pages, especially in the South West which seems to be your main area of interest. Why are you spending your time amending work that has only just been done, and especially deleting detail which is perfectly valid?

Ojsyork (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojsyork: I'm sorry if you think that my editing is edit warring. To me it is just 'being bold'. I know you and I will never completely agree on some things, but my edits are only intended to improve pages. They are not being done to you, rather they are being done to articles that I consider can be improved. For example, where a citation gives a page range for a whole book I replace it with more specific page numbers. I know you don't think this necessary, but many people do and it does not detract from what you have written. I find the five reversions you have made to my edits in the last week very unhelpful, but I didn't consider them to be edit warring until you raised the matter here.
I am not following you around looking for new edits to change. One of the things on my 'to do' list is to take a look at all the unasessed pages recently identified by Aluxosm. While I am looking at these pages I deal with any obvious errors or changes that could improve them. For example, Clacton-on-Sea Lifeboat Station was created by you on 24 March, your last edit was on 10 August, and I made edits on 26 October.
Edit warring includes changing format just to suit your own preference.
Vandalism is malicious deletion of content
I'm sorry to have upset you with my few reversions of your work. How it feels when the boot is on the other foot.
In my view, your persistent amendments are not improving anything.
  • Inconsistent formatting
  • Crazy lifeboat types that don't even match what you set up years ago. (One page had a mix of Peake, Self-righter and Standard Self-righter).
  • Endless pointless lists of page references.
  • Sortable tables. WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED SORTABLE TABLES.
  • Removal or relocation of ON and OP definitions.
  • Table sorting.
  • Deleting Pre-ON numbers
  • Adding lifeboat before and after stations in comments - this is just duplicating what is already on the fleet pages, and doubling any remedial work should things change.
  • Being absolutely clueless about presentation.
There was nothing wrong with Clacton-on-Sea. You didn't add any value. You just changed the format to suit your own preferences, and that is edit warring.
You edited Burnham-on-Crouch. The page was only 22 days old. Everything was checked and verified. You just changed the format to suit your own preferences, and that is edit warring.
You have changed my amendments on every last page in the South West. And where you can, you delete what I have added.
I spent a great deal of time sorting out the mess that was the lifeboat list on both Lizard and Appledore pages, and put tables in some sensible order, only for you to come along within days, and change it all.
I started added Pre-ON numbers. Its vital for identifying movement of early boats. For example, West Hartlepool had one boat, moved between 2 stations, and given three names. Without adding the Pre-number, its impossible to follow the progression. But you delete these at every opportunity.
You have been a member of this group for 10 years, and have had plenty of time to create pages in your own style. But you didn't. Now someone else has taken up the challenge, and created 150 station pages, why on earth do you feel the need to prove them wrong, and change everything they have done.
It's not right, and not acceptable, and whether it is Edit Warring or Vandalism, it has got to stop.
I REALLY don't wish to be at odds with anyone. Everyone else seems very happy at my contribution to the RNLI pages.
I wonder why you don't spend the energy creating new South West pages that are missing, instead of trying to correct what doesn't need correcting.
I'm doing my best to create pages with a standard format, but for whatever reason, I've upset you early on, and you now just seem intent on changing everything I do.
Do you wonder why I'm frustrated with it all.
Ojsyork (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you need to tone down your complaints; they can't all be dealt with at once. I suggest you raise one or two at a time and deal with each civilly. Just throwing out a lot of accusations is not constructive, and will more likely attract sanctions than it will sort out problems. Just friendly advice from a concerned colleague of you both. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


After further reflection, I will stop now.
I have no wish to be at odds with anyone.
I just want treating with some respect, and I've said my piece.
I have no confidence anything will change, but it would seem that if I create further fuss, I will be the one that's in the wrong, which is far from the case.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Martin. I'm always happy for you or anyone else to discuss why you think my editing is wrong. You've done that before elsewhere and, despite what you think, I have made some changes to the way I do things. I still believe my edits comply with the policies and guidelines but I recognise that sometimes these are open to interpretation, and in those cases your interpretation does not have to be the same as mine.

The thread above has been edited to remove all reference to specific persons or Vandalism.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hartlepool

Today I just completed one of the hardest station pages to create, Hartlepool.

It's taken about 4 months.. but with a big break in the middle, as the information didn't tally. But there is now a new history book.

Its my 158th page. It completes the list of wiki pages for All the active RNLI stations in the UK, IOM and CI.

Just 30 or so left to do for Ireland.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Congrats. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

Dear All

As the last year progressed, I've been doing my best, not just to create pages, but to keep up with the ever changing details of lifeboats and stations. However, the majority of these updates are gained from individual stations updating their facebook pages, a source which maybe sometimes be frowned upon as reliable?

So I would like to ask, what would you all prefer...?

a, that we operate the pages up to one year out of date, and don't update regularly, or
b, update as we go, and not worry too much about the citations, knowing one will be along shortly!

I see Geof has, quite rightly I suppose, added some "[citation needed]" tags to some of the entries on the List of RNLI stations, although as a regular lifeboat page editor, I don't understand why you wouldn't just make the correction. Are we not all on the 'same team'? I'm not quite sure what this aims to achieve, other than highlight someone else's deficiencies. Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort given that a new handbook will be out in a matter of days, which will validate the majority, if not all, of the entries.

Your comments please...

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I do understand how frustrating this collaborative project can be, but we have to live with it. The citation needed tags are not, I believe, intended as a direct criticism of your comprehensive work on lifeboat stations, merely a statement of fact - text is either reliably-sourced or not - there is no other category. And don't forget that a tag is preferable to the alternative, which is deleting unsourced or unreliably-sourced text, and no-one wants that, when we know there will be a reliable source coming out before long. So if a new handbook is due out soon, you could wait for that. If there is a risk of unsourced data being deleted (though it can be retrieved from the article's history, so is never lost) then an RNLI primary source would be a stop-gap, and I don't think it's a problem to use it, rather than nothing. I hope this helps. Best wishes. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham
I wasn't taking anything personally.
I think the action is correct - but maybe not in our best interest.
If as a group we wish to highlight our deficiencies to everyone else, and risk stuff being deleted, then maybe we should just not make any updates throughout the year, and leave it all until a new reference work comes out.
I was asking what was the preference - regular updates and no citations, or ignore new information until it can be verified? Ojsyork (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purely from Wikipedia's point of view (i.e. guidelines) the latter is preferred. My personal opinion was what I was offering as well. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

200 Done

Dear All

When I started out updating Lifeboat pages just 1 year ago, it was out of abject frustration that pages were out of date. With pages up to 5 years out of date, I thought my contributions would help. I've done my best to update what I can, match the style that went before, but to try to ensure a consistent format across all the pages.

I then discovered that I could produce station pages, and worked out enough ways to find sufficient content, a format that I'm happy with, and I trust most other folks are too, by the comments I receive. By the middle of the year, I realised I'd completed over 100 pages, so I then set myself the target of 200, to be completed in this RNLI 200th Anniversary year.

Isle of Whithorn Lifeboat Station, completed today, is no. 200.

May I wish you all a Happy Christmas and best wishes for 2025.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RNLI Medal redirects

Just wanted to give my reasoning for some of the recent changes I've made (like this), a few of which were reverted by Geof (like here) — Where I swapped out:

[[Awards of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution#Medal of the RNLI|RNLI Gold Medal]]

with

[[RNLI Gold Medal]].

I wanted a way to prioritse efforts on RNLI related awards; being able to go through Special:WhatLinksHere/Awards of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and filtering by award is only beneficial. Tools like PetScan are also a lot more useful with links like this. There's no real downside to redirects so there's no need to "fix" them. At some point in the future, each medal will likely have it's own section of the Awards of the RNLI article, the redirects could then be pointed to a more specific place.

I intend on changing links to the following redirects where appropriate:

while keeping the original text in place. I hope this if of use to others. Aluxosm (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table format in station articles

With only two primary page editors at this time, who are in disagreement, the Tit-for-Tat re-editing of lifeboat tables in station articles cannot continue. Until such time as there is agreement on a format, for now, it is suggested that what is done is done, and no changes should be made. The two preferred options are listed below for gradual development. The primary first decision is Dates first, OR, ON and Op numbers first, as per Lifeboat article tables.

Table format in station articles

Option 1:

'ON' is the Official Number of the boat used in RNLI records from 1884.
'Op. No.' is the RNLI's Operational Number displayed on the boat.

At station ON Op. No. Name Build Class Comments
1878–1888 – – Henry William Pickersgill 1878 Self-righting 35 ft (11 m) boat.[1]
1947–1949 694 – J.B. Proudfoot 1924 Watson Built for Cromer in 1924 where it was named H.F. Bailey.[2]
1949–1967 860 – Southern Africa 1949 Barnett [3]
1967–1979 1003 44-004 Faithful Forester 1967 Waveney Sold for lifeboat service in Australia.[4]

References

  1. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 16–17.
  2. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 44–45.
  3. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 52–53.
  4. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 58–59.

Option 2:

ON[a] Op. No.[b] Name Build At station[1] Class Comments
Pre-636 – Henry William Pickersgill 1878 1878–1888 35-foot Self-righting (P&S) [Note 1]
694 – J.B. Proudfoot 1924 1947–1949 45-foot Watson Previously named H.F. Bailey at Cromer
860 – Southern Africa 1949 1949–1967 51-foot Barnett
1003 44-004 Faithful Forester 1967 1967–1979 Waveney (Deleted comment, duplication from Fleet page)

  1. ^ ON is the RNLI's Official Number of the boat.
  2. ^ Op. No. is the RNLI's Operational Number of the boat carried on the hull.
Pre ON numbers are unofficial numbers used by the Lifeboat Enthusiast Society to reference early lifeboats not included on the official RNLI list.

Notes

  1. ^ 35-foot x 8-foot 6in (10-Oared) self-righting lifeboat, built by Forrestt of Limehouse, costing £155.

References

  1. ^ Leonard & Denton 2024, pp. 16–17, 44–45, 52–53, 58–59.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Ojsyork (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said last time this was discussed, a well-designed table uses the first column to show the way that the rows are ordered. Which is why station articles are best as in Option 1 (that is, the date order the lifeboat was at the station) whereas lifeboat class articles are best as Option 2 (in numerical sequence). Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geof Sheppard
I've thought long and hard over this, but I still think its wrong. The list should be in order of primary information, and as its a list of lifeboats, that is the name of the lifeboat, not the date.
And whilst they should be listed in date order, the lifeboat name is always preceded by ON and OP numbers, then we put them first.
Also to be considered is build date. (I think this should be included on all tables). The build date should ALWAYS go before the service date, but this is impossible if you put the service date first in the table. Creating a table with a build date first is equally ridiculous.
The LBES handbook is in ON order.
So, I appeal to you to reconsider, especially as there are now over 200 articles with ON and OP numbers first. Sorry, I've been busy. Do you want to spend the time changing them all, or are you better off creating S/West pages.
However, I don't believe we will ever agree. So until there is a consensus from the wider group, then the directive has been suspended, primarily to end the tit-for-tat editing. I'll not change anything else that exists to the other way, I trust you to respect that too.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is MOS:TABLES any help, or is that just muddying the waters? (I haven't read it, and don't intend to; just wondered) Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking mirrors Geof's reasoning, sortable tables with the date up front (on station pages) makes the most sense to me. I think Martin is correct about the primary information being first, but to me that's the date; when I'm browsing these pages my eye is always drawn to the bottom left of the list to see which lifeboats are currently active at a particular station.
I prefer the more specific class names in option 2 but I'm not sure about the notes in the comment section; the class is already there, why cant the comment just be "built by Forrestt of Limehouse, costing £155."?
There's no rush with any of this whatever the case. It would be good to have a standard, but 'fixing' these can wait for later, also if it's just a case of moving fields around I could probably whip up an semi-automated way of doing it so you guys can focus on the real work 😄. Aluxosm (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aluxosm
So where would you put Build date? My primary issue with service date first, is that build date should come before Service date.
With regard to the 'notes' on the spec of the lifeboat, this was done so that the table isn't too cluttered, and can be updated as better details of specification are found. This leaves the comments section for relevent but one off information, such as 'Last Tyne on service', 'converted to engine power', or 'left on the beach at Dunkirk'. For any boat with a fleet page, I see no value in listing what happened next, as that is covered on the fleet page, and effectively doubles the update work if new information appears.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojsyork: Ah gotcha, I see what you're saying about the build date, but I actually still think #Option 1 is more correct here; I don't think it's the most important information and don't see why it ALWAYS (emphasis yours) has to go before the service date. I feel like it fits in very well with the ship naming docs and the guidance for short descriptions with dates, 1967 Waveney <that was> sold for lifeboat service in Australia sounds pretty natural to me.
I'm not sure that we should be too concerned with tying to keep the tables as narrow as possible; I think a short, single sentence description is fine, only using notes to expand on parts of it if needed. I don't really like the empty sections with only notes to be honest, I tend to just skip past them, completely missing any of the actual note text. If it's something that requires a much longer description, putting something before the table and under the 'Station lifeboats' heading seems like a good way to go.
I do see what you're saying about the duplicated information and I don't love it either, but a certain amount is always bound to happen. It would be good to add this to some general guidance though, on keeping the duplicated text to a minimum and about what information should go where.
This is all really useful, thanks for working through it! Aluxosm (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham
Not sure MOS:TABLES is any help at this point
Are you not going to make a contribution?
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd mention it. No I'm not contributing, as I never had much of a grasp of tables (I'm a word person, not a graphics person), but I'm following the process in case I learn something. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent the last week or so searching around the internet for examples of tables. In every case where the row order was important, the first column contained that important information.
My reading took in books and journals from different publishers, and guidance for editors, scientists, statisticians and civil servants. All used a first column (or 'row header') that reflected the order of the rows.
I even challenged an AI tool to improve a table. It put the dates in the first column, reasoning that "as each date is unique, placing this first ensures immediate recognition of the timeline".
I had already looked at MOS:TABLE. There is a lot of information but nothing that explicitly says the columns should be in a any particular order. It does, however, remind us that sortable tables are useful if people might want to the see the rows in a different order (say, by name or by number) although I agree this isn't usually necessary if there are just two or three rows. It also states that we must "Avoid using <br /> tags in adjacent cells to create a visual row that is not reflected in the HTML table structure". This isn't usually a problem in station articles but it is in many of the lifeboat class lists and also in the list of lifeboat stations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Water_sports/RNLI_task_force